Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So some voters don't like the way things are going, so we should change the rules? Fix the problem? Because they know better?

I stand opposed to this power play for a bigger slice of the say. Let the rule of law and democracy itself be upheld! The semi- knowledgeable were allowed in, now we must live with their (ludicrous) decisions.

Keeping the field at 10-11 this late in the project is actually a change of the rules from the older projects

The point of expanding the field is to give voters more options.

 

[Theokritos]

The semi- knowledgeable were allowed in...

Seriously?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Seriously?

No, sarcastically.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I want Keith Tkachuk in for god sake!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just to be clear, I'm against expanding the field for the current round, now that the candidates are revealed. That would indeed be a "power play."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I want Keith Tkachuk in for god sake!

And I want Krutov.

 

[BenchBrawl]

And I want Krutov.

I don't want Keith Tkachuk.I want Serge Savard, Eddie Gerard, Dave Keon, Bill Gadsby, and the likes.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd be willing to go as far as having an open field, every player is eligible.So obviously, I'd also be in favor of a larger pool.

Let people push for who they think deserve to go in.

Agree. If you think someone doesn't look good in the current field, just don't vote for them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Agree. If you think someone doesn't look good in the current field, just don't vote for them.

I didnt know this was allowed, wish I had known a few times already.Thought you had to rank all of them up to 10.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Apropos the post immediately above- it's NOT an option... it's just something that's proposed as a possible modification. Speaking of which- do you suppose it would be possible to make a different thread to incorporate all of the "meta-points" involved in a possible ex post facto project modification- and reserve THIS thread for the discussion of the nominated players(?)

Speaking of nominated players, I'd like to return to Dit Clapper. In my mind, he's not the best of our possible options this Round- but I don't think he's anywhere near the least of them, either. So let me restate some of the points that I and others have made, the pronouncement(s) as to the relative strength of the points- and see how those pronouncements hold up to counter-scrutiny.

- Argument for: Clapper was one of only ten players who had the minimum three-year waiting period for the Hall of Fame waived. The others? Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Beliveau, Richard, Kelly, Lindsay and Sawchuk - seriously impressive company.
- Counter-argument: the Hall, especially in its earliest days, made some strange decisions. Clapper is by far the weakest player on that list.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? Not very. It speaks to the fact that he was well-respected, but I don't think we should rest our case on a questionable decision from the 1940's.

To begin with- 1) nobody's resting their case on this factoid. 2) Also, nobody's saying that Clapper the player is equal in stature to the others similarly inducted. We're simply saying that it's a feather in his cap when it comes to comparisons with the likes of Tim Horton and Al MacInnis.

- Argument for: he was the first player in NHL history to player 20 seasons. Clapper retired in 1947 and still held that record outright as late as 1965 (Howe tied him the next year).
- Counter-argument: granted, you have to be a good player to play a long time. But we're talking about the top 100 players of all-time here - there should be more to his case than merely hanging on. There was a point in time when Doug Mohns, Dean Prentice, Eric Nesterenko and Ron Stewart had among the longest careers in NHL history - good for them, but that doesn't inherently prove that they were great. I know 20 is a nice round number, but Clapper only played six games (held scoreless) that final year. And the last four years before that, the NHL was watered-down due to WWII.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? I don't find this one very convincing either. Good for Clapper for having a long career, but it's not a strong argument in the context of this project.

And that's a little like saying "how big a deal was Columbus' trans-Atlantic voyage? Happens all the time now." Clapper's immediate contemporaries, to cite some, seemed pretty impressed by this.

I don't know - this guy is *elite* at two positions. That has to count for something.

And maybe I under-estimated his effectiveness at RW. It's rightly pointed out that his era-specific direct competition at that position included Bill Cook and Charlie Conacher, two of the top 10 to have EVER played that position. [We reckoned them at 6th & 8th.] Since the retirement of Jagr, modern hockey's seen no RW who can withstand comparison to those two (unless one counts Ovechkin's cup-of-coffee stint at that position). Maybe "elite" is an adjective that fits, after all.

Clapper won't be first on my ballot (or second, or third... or maybe even---) but I'm not seeing him fall to the lower half of my table, either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I didnt know this was allowed, wish I had known a few times already.Thought you had to rank all of them up to 10.

As per the rules, 10 names have to be submited each voting round by participants.

 

[seventieslord]

I didnt know this was allowed, wish I had known a few times already.Thought you had to rank all of them up to 10.

you do have to rank 10, I'm saying if there was a field of 15 or 16, and you think that a bunch of them are undeserving, then don't rank those ones.

 

[Canadiens1958]

you do have to rank 10, I'm saying if there was a field of 15 or 16, and you think that a bunch of them are undeserving, then don't rank those ones.

This just accumulates undeserving players faster. 5 or 6 per round / vote so you get a weak round of undeserving players faster. Since 10 have to be voted the undeserving will eventually contribute 5 to the list.

Mechanism where players are dropped, like the BBHOF voting could be considered.

 

[quoipourquoi]

you do have to rank 10, I'm saying if there was a field of 15 or 16, and you think that a bunch of them are undeserving, then don't rank those ones.

Danger in that is that the ranking swings largely on NR. The greater number of NRs available, the more the system rewards safer names - if only by guaranteeing that someone can always punish certain types or positions or eras of players.

At any rate, I gave everyone the option for a strict-10 or based on the breaks. Most liked Hockey Outsider’s pitch of 10 plus anyone within X% of 10th.

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

Like I’ve told TDMM, I’ll check the breaks - maybe 10 plus anyone within X voting points instead of a percentage, and I’ll pitch the two options.

But I was very upfront about this and I directly solicited your opinions before the project was underway, so part of me is like... it’s not about the format but instead about trying to get specific players eligible quicker.

 

[sr edler]

I want Keith Tkachuk in for god sake!

I don't want Keith Tkachuk.

Make up your mind.

 

[sr edler]

Fedorov should move in next round, so we can compare him to Timo Selänne. Personally, I feel Feds comes out on top quite comfortably, but what do I know about hockey.

 

[MXD]

Danger in that is that the ranking swings largely on NR. The greater number of NRs available, the more the system rewards safer names - if only by guaranteeing that someone can always punish certain types or positions or eras of players.

At any rate, I gave everyone the option for a strict-10 or based on the breaks. Most liked Hockey Outsider’s pitch of 10 plus anyone within X% of 10th.

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

Like I’ve told TDMM, I’ll check the breaks - maybe 10 plus anyone within X voting points instead of a percentage, and I’ll pitch the two options.

But I was very upfront about this and I directly solicited your opinions before the project was underway, so part of me is like... it’s not about the format but instead about trying to get specific players eligible quicker.

To be honest, we've collectively been kinda brain dead on that one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Danger in that is that the ranking swings largely on NR. The greater number of NRs available, the more the system rewards safer names - if only by guaranteeing that someone can always punish certain types or positions or eras of players.

At any rate, I gave everyone the option for a strict-10 or based on the breaks. Most liked Hockey Outsider’s pitch of 10 plus anyone within X% of 10th.

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

Like I’ve told TDMM, I’ll check the breaks - maybe 10 plus anyone within X voting points instead of a percentage, and I’ll pitch the two options.

But I was very upfront about this and I directly solicited your opinions before the project was underway, so part of me is like... it’s not about the format but instead about trying to get specific players eligible quicker.

The procedural posts were buried in the (by their nature) disorganized preliminary threads that were, frankly, painful to read at times.

 

[seventieslord]

We could solve the problem of mass-NRing certain groups, by just ranking 12-15 players per ballot, if we are going to have 15-16 up per round.

 

[MXD]

We could solve the problem of mass-NRing certain groups, by just ranking 12-15 players per ballot, if we are going to have 15-16 up per round.

TBH... what's the problem of mass NR-ing?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We could solve the problem of mass-NRing certain groups, by just ranking 12-15 players per ballot, if we are going to have 15-16 up per round.

You're making this more complicated than it has to be.

Ranking 10 players with multiple NRs was intentionally created as a compromise position between ranking literally everyone (hurts controversial players too much) and only ranking top 5 (helps controversial players too much). It is also easier on voters than having to rank more than 10.

 

[seventieslord]

TBH... what's the problem of mass NR-ing?

Not sure. As it applies to a single player, being ranked NR is less damaging in a crowded round, because he's just being tired for last with multiple others, as opposed to being ranked dead last with a purpose.

I think qpq was referring to hardyvan-like voting, where a guy could, by design, rank the oldest players last repeatedly, just to give one example

 

[seventieslord]

You're making this more complicated than it has to be.

Ranking 10 players with multiple NRs was intentionally created as a compromise position between ranking literally everyone (hurts controversial players too much) and only ranking top 5 (helps controversial players too much). It is also easier on voters than having to rank more than 10.

I know. I'd be perfectly fine ranking 10 of 15 or 16 players.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The goal of the project is education - not an accurate top-120 list. The people whose lists change the most are often the people who learned the most, and if you’re doing that, you’re doing great!

as an observer, i'd say if the process is indeed more important than the list itself then the pools should be kept small to ensure close discussion of each player, instead of struggling to do keep on top of a larger pool of guys in each round.

 

[VMBM]

Fedorov should move in next round, so we can compare him to Timo Selänne. Personally, I feel Feds comes out on top quite comfortably, but what do I know about hockey.

Timo's not available for voting (yet), Teemu is.